It doesn't matter if he did it or not!!
The UK just got loads of oil and gas!!!!
Justice
Result indeed, well done Scotland!!
Release Lockerbie bomber Abdelbasset Ali al-Megrahi or not?
- Thread starter weltweit
- Start date
Result indeed, well done Scotland!!
You're failing to address the point that in all likelihood the guy was INNOCENT of that crime.
Not according to law he wasn't. What evidence are you pointing to?
The stuff linked to by myself, Roadkill and others have linked to, covered by Private Eye magazine and reported in the Times, amoungst other places. The suggestions by an un-named member of ACPO stated that some evidence was falsified, the star witnesses were rewarded, shown pictures of al-Megrahi and fed with stories to fit them up. That witness statements suggesting other groups involvement were ignored, that the CIA withheld documentation from the defense team, the list goes on. It was certainly enough for SCCRC to refer it back for appeal. One that was only dropped for the expediency of the release.
You're avoiding the fact here. The one fact.
He was found guilty.
Fuck it, rape, kill... who cares? You'll be let out eventually, if you're connected that is.
The question of whether or not there ios any doubt over the conviction is (or ashould be) entirely irrelavent to the issue of a release on compassionate grounds. (No-one has any issue over whether Ronnie Biggs should have been convicted, for instance, and he has been released on compassionate grounds).
Your evidence for that (like anything suggesting it had to be dropped for the comppassionate release to happen (as opposed to a prisoner transfer, for which that would apparently have been a prerequisite))?
And? Your blind support of a flawed case, without any supporting arguement isn't exactly helping you either.BTW, using private eye as a source isn't helping your argument..
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Even a glance at the baldest statement of the supposed case against him - for example, the BBC website's summary - should make anyone say "er what? Is that it? That's not right". Generally people seem to split into "haven't read any of it" and "suspicious or entirely convinced of his innocence".
Legally not, but politically expedient to hurry the process along.
In reply to your other point. It shouldn't make any difference, but public sympathies will always be affected by such things.
Apparently not Gabi though, who admits to not looking up the details.
So why didnt the Scottish government clear him if he's innocent? Why go thru this rigmarole at the expense of the victims' families...
Fucking horrendous. The guy's guilty as sin, as evidenced by the cheering hordes on his arrival back in tripoli. And a beaming Gadaffi.
You'll believe anything wont u?
Fucking horrendous. The guy's guilty as sin, as evidenced by the cheering hordes on his arrival back in tripoli. And a beaming Gadaffi.
You'll believe anything wont u?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Quite right. I hadn't looked at it until this week. Now that I have, I am absolutely convinced that his trial was a travesty of justice. It was crocodile tears that the US government was shedding this week for the benefit of a domestic audience. The end of this appeal and his release without pardon is the very best outcome they could have hoped for.
In fact, discussing his release in terms of compassion is entirely spurious. The law says he was guilty. Well the law, in this case, was not justice.
Fuck off. I don't have time to research fine details. The media I read (and trust) does that for me.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
That is utter nonsense. Read the evidence for a miscarriage of justice before uttering such shite.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Which media is that then?
What? The media that have reported for years about the flawed evidence, or the ones that you choose to give you your nice cosy worldview?
If you can't be bothered to look it up for yourself, why deny it when it's presented to you on a plate?
The guardian, the times, the bbc, the indie... etc etc..
Urban's operating in a parallell universe on this one. Nuts.
Because it's not in their remit to do so! The SCCRC had referred it back for appeal, they don't do that for jollies. The reporting on the evidence definitely suggests that he would have been found innocent.
Source?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Can you really not work out why? And that is a question that can be asked of many gross miscarriages of justice over the years for which there was no powerful lobby to prevent a pardon. The legal system here, as elsewhere, simply isn't set up to allow for the fact that its trials may be stitch-ups. Many many people have spent many many years behind bars after the clear evidence for their innocence has come to light as the system grumbles through its kafka-esque machinations.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
The fact that a miscarriage of justice has taken place does not mean that it therefore cannot be a miscarriage of justice 
weltweit
Well-Known Member
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Actually, I missed this. He wasn't effectively pardoned. He was released as part of standard practice in Scottish law whereby terminally ill prisoners are allowed home to die. You're sounding like a Sun leader writer.
That would be the same Times I linked to in post #292.
The same Guardian that posted this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/jun/17/politics.lockerbie1
Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/fbi-document-shows-lockerbie-case-flaws-1570413.html
I could go on, but it's getting embarrassing.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I'm not as credulous as you. I don't believe in someone's guilt simply because they have been convicted. If the evidence is there for me to look at myself, I'll look at it and reach my own conclusion. In this case, that is what I've done, and this conviction utterly stinks. He's almost certainly innocent, and if he is indeed guilty, the trial did not prove so.
Similar threads
